August 10, 2012

Atheist Achilles Heels: Objective Morality and Sacred Life

Do objective moral standards exist? Is life sacred? The answer to both questions is a resounding "Yes," and quotes by contemporary secular humanist atheists outline why these subjects present Achilles heals that cannot be practically addressed in accordance with their beliefs. One prime example is PZ Myers, who once declared, "Nothing must be held sacred."[1] Nothing would mean, well, nothing. According to Myers, no human rights, no animal rights and no life at all should be held sacred. And there are no sexual boundaries that should be held as sacred either. But is that how he really thinks and operates when push comes to shove? No, actually. When I had confronted him regarding a 'pet' subject at his blog, bestiality, I asked him if he believed it was morally acceptable and should be legalized. His answer was quite revealing:“So, to answer clueless thick-skulled Christian idiot’s question, I don’t object to bestiality in a very limited set of specific conditions, but do not support it in any way.”[2]

If you are sensing that there is something amiss with a person stating he neither supports nor opposes bestiality, then you are more perceptive with regard to moral reasoning than PZ Myers is. Myers once stated his morality is based on feelings of empathy. In an interview he stated, "If I punched you in the face, you would feel bad and I would feel bad ..and that's where morality comes from."[3] Ironically, Myers offers a cartoon that mocks plaintive logic, that is, logic based on feelings, which is exactly the same basis of morality Myers appealed to in his interview.[4]When I sent Myers an email asking him to clarify what "specific conditions" would make bestiality morally acceptable in his opinion, he declined to address my email and my second article on the subject.[5] There is really only one likely scenario in which it seems Myers would accept bestiality, also known as zoophilia, and that is if it is apparent that the animal is not being harmed and if it is demonstrating some kind of approval, enjoyment or "consent" in the act. The problem for Myers here is quite simple. If nothing must be held sacred, then why should bestiality be considered acceptable only under certain conditions and not always? Why should animal rights be an issue if animal rights are not sacred? These are logical contradictions he needs to address. What is happening here is that Myers is revealing in his quote that he does in fact believe that some boundaries must be held sacred.

Another example involves a recent commenter at my blog. He had basically offered that questions regarding extreme moral decisions do not require "right" or "wrong" moral answers. In response I asked him to disprove the following three points:

1. X (Torturing babies for fun) is always wrong.

2. To support and promote X is always wrong.

3. To oppose and resist X is always right.

In response to me, he did not attempt to address the first or second premises, but skipped to the third. He invented a scenario supposedly justifying moral relativism using situational ethics:

Xlb the Wicked Prince has announced that any opposition to his plans to torture one baby for fun, by any member of the village, will result in the deaths of every member of that village, by torture. Furthermore, it is clear that resistance is futile; Xlb has brought his army with him, and they are far too well-armed. All you can do is state your resistance, and put up a token fight.

So; is resisting the torture of that single baby, thereby guaranteeing the deaths of every member of the village, incontrovertibly "right"?

In response to the above scenario, picture a group of thirty men and women free and unbound in the village square surrounding a table with a baby on top of it and a man beginning to cut into the baby. If the villagers were bound, then they would not be able to resist, however, the scenario offers that physical resistance is a possibility, albeit futile. So, as the baby begins to writhe and scream with pain, do you believe that no one in the entire village would feel their conscience pricked, thinking, "We can't just stand here and allow this to happen!" It would seem so in my opinion. I believe that people of a normally sensitive conscience could not simply stand idly by. And I believe that any group of people who did stand idly by would not want to live with themselves after passively allowing a baby to be tortured to death in front of them.

The scriptures outline a moral precept that silence and passivity during a sinful act is equal to consent. A person who would stand by and watch torture without speaking out in opposition or attempting to stop the act would share in the guilt of the act. Sadly, in promoting water boarding, the US has come to operate based upon the morally invalid "end justifies the means" moral relativism and it is quite distressing if you take the time to consider it.

Getting back to the torture story, if an evil sadistic prince wants to kill all the villagers because any number of them may have a basic human conscience, he will likely have many more opportunities to do the same thing later down the road as well, and there probably won't be opportunities to evangelize the prince and any villagers who may need it. So, there is not really a strong rationale for attempting to postpone the likely inevitable misery and death of the entire village, as an excuse for not acting.

The fact is, we all do have a conscience that helps to guide us in moral decisions and actions. And our conscience is in tune with certain sacred boundary lines. PZ Myers' rejection of bestiality under certain circumstances is a good example. When Myers boasted that nothing must be held sacred, he was stating a premise that he could not live up to. If nothing must be held sacred, then Peter Singer's infanticide is perfectly acceptable. And, for that matter, torturing babies for fun should also be acceptable at all times and places. If little babies are not quite sentient human beings with full reasoning capabilities, then, according to atheistic secular human logic, what should be the problem with killing them? If human life is not sacred, if we are all just bags of fertilizer, then torturing another bag of fertilizer is no moral problem at all. These are the types of dilemmas the atheist secular humanist is faced with. Either all human life is sacred, or no human life is.

If nothing is sacred, then human cannibalism is morally acceptable. After all, as Peter Singer points out, any other attitude would be a form of speciesism. "Peter Singer compared speciesism with racism and sexism, and urged that there is no good reason for refusing to extend the basic principle of equality - the principle of equal consideration of interests - to non-human animals."[6] If there is truly an equal consideration of interests, then animals and humans are on a level moral playing field and our intelligence should not mitigate against any animal rights. So, what does this imply?

The fish in the sea eat each other, the reptiles eat each other, and so on. Peter Singer proposes we should be on an equal moral footing with the animals. Yet, as far as I know, Singer has not proposed human cannibalism as a means of reducing our human presence and making way for other species to exist on our crowded earth. Like Myers, Singer will probably never actually own up to what he proposes because deep down he probably does not really believe it. The scriptures outline how God has placed eternity in our hearts.[7] And one aspect of this sense of timelessness is the knowledge of objective and eternal principles regarding good and evil reflected in the human conscience.

The day that PZ Myers proposes that all zoophilia, incest, pedophilia and torture are all acceptable is the day he will affirm his declaration that "Nothing must be held sacred." The day that Peter Singer truly defends his ant-speciesism and advocates human cannibalism, then he will be genuine in his beliefs and logically consistent. The day that any atheist commenter at my blog proposes a situation that justifies torturing innocent babies for fun as a morally acceptable act is the day when their moral relativism will perhaps be justified. Until then, keep in mind that the pronounced and multiplied logical inconsistencies of atheists only serve to remind us that objective morality does in fact exist and life is indeed sacred.

88 comments:

Sigh...Rick I can never tell if you are just an idiot or a completely dishonest propagandist... Though, since you do ignore in most cases the threads where you are put into a bind or just repeat the same nonsense that has been refuted (and you did acknowledged that it was refuted), I am more inclined to consider you both. A dishonest idiot.

I will wright an answer to your nonsense on morality later on... However, I expect it is futile to make you listen to reason.

If your moral relativism is correct and there are no reliable standards, then offer a condition in which torturing babies for fun would be considered morally acceptable.

First, moral relativism doesn't mean "there are no reliable standards". It DOES mean "there are no absolute, universal invariant standards".

Second, if we assume your faulty definition for the sake of discussion, such a condition would include "whenever we feel like it". Interestingly, we can also find a condition if a divine moral law-giver exists:

"Whenever God tells us to"

---

Your explanation of (your) morality doesn't resolve any moral conundrums. Doing what we are told to do is just as likely to result in immorality as is doing whatever we feel like.

>First, moral relativism doesn't mean "there are no reliable standards". It DOES mean "there are no absolute, universal invariant standards".

- The first part of your statement implies there ARE reliable standards, which has never been demonstrated by secular humanists.

- The second part of your statement (your true relativism) has been refuted by the example offered:

"Offer a condition in which torturing babies for fun would be considered morally acceptable."

Your critique that God's moral standard is subjective and arbitrary does not take into account the nature of God as a harmonious, truthful, good and loving creator.

It is a logically cohesive explanation of a morally valid system. God's goodness is observed in the wisdom of creation and in the gift of free choice. God has given humanity logic that is based on both true premises and valid forms. God has given humanity the ability to choose good or evil, spiritual freedom or spiritual slavery.

An evil God, if such a thing were possible, would be a lying God and there would be no basis for a logic based on universal truth and validity, nor would there be choice to choose good or evil.

Your critique that God's moral standard is subjective and arbitrary does not take into account the nature of God as a harmonious, truthful, good and loving creator.... the existence of which has never been demonstrated by Christian moral relativists. So you're right, I didn't take it into account.

It is a logically cohesive explanation of a morally valid system. A morally valid system in which the torture of babies, for fun, is justifiable if it is done at God's command.

- The fact that a list of legal categories exists does not in any way touch the subject of moral justification. I guess it is you who needs a little hand holding.

Government laws established against such things as bestiality and incest have been deemed illegal because Western Civ is based on a Judeo-Christian idea known as human exceptionalism. Now that secular humanism controls everything, many such laws are lacking a an agreed-upon moral foundation.

The US military presently allows bestiality. Because it is a documented government law, does that mean it is morally justified? If it is legally allowable, does that mean maybe you should try it to see if you like this as an alternative sexual lifestyle?

So, if nothing must be held sacred, then do you believe sex between humans and animals is acceptable, as long as both appear to be enjoying it? Is incest between two consenting adults purely for the sake of pleasure morally acceptable? If not, offer some valid objective reasons why they should be illegal according to your beliefs.

RickI'll ask again: If your moral relativism is correct and there are no reliable standards, then offer a condition in which torturing babies for fun would be considered morally acceptable.Rick you dolt; It's in the bible where your own god ordered the death of babies and pregnant women.

Yet you pretend that it's the atheist who have "objective morality" to be an achilles heel?

RickSo, if nothing must be held sacred, then do you believe sex between humans and animals is acceptable, as long as both appear to be enjoying it? Is incest between two consenting adults purely for the sake of pleasure morally acceptable? If not, offer some valid objective reasons why they should be illegal according to your beliefs.And now, you are again, yet AGAIN going on about bestiality?

Did I not fucking settle this?!

Did I not explain in enough detail earlier in your psychotic posts about PZ Myers, the biological and physiological reasons why us atheists do NOT need some outside source to tell us that animal f***ing is wrong?

Yet here you are again, apparently pretending that I never addressed that issue, at your insistence yet.

You must be hoping that those who read this shit blog of yours have never read that, and will therefore fall for your ruse here.

Forget it. I'm linking to where I dealt with that madness of yours previously, plus I am pointing out, again, that if you reject all the atheists reasons for saying that such a thing (whether it be bestiality, murder, etc) are wrong, then all you've done (again) is to show that without your biblegod belief, that it's you and people who think like you that are the ones without any true "morality".

So tell us, Reynold: If Myers finds something illegal (mostly still today) like bestiality to be non-objectionable under certain conditions, in what possible manner has he "addressed" the issue if he is unwilling to state what specific conditions he is referring to and how and why these circumstances warrant a moral change, or complete reversal, rather, of moral values? Do answer, Reynold.

Some more homework: If nothing must be held sacred and we humans are to be morally equated with animals, as Peter Singer advocates, then please offer reasons why infanticide, incest and pedophilia should be morally objectionable for atheist secular humanists.

Note from the very beginning the conflation of "objective morals" and "Sacred things". As if objective morality could come from nowhere else.

"Nothing must be held sacred."[1] Nothing would mean, well, nothing. According to Myers, no human rights, no animal rights and no life at all should be held sacred.

And if you are an atheist, as he is, that's a perfectly acceptable standard -- because for the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of uses, "sacred" carries with it a religious context. Just because *you* can't imagine anything, apparently, between "It's sacred" and "anything goes at all", doesn't mean other people can't.

So, as the baby begins to writhe and scream with pain, do you believe that no one in the entire village would feel their conscience pricked, thinking, "We can't just stand here and allow this to happen!" It would seem so in my opinion.

Oh, I'm sure almost everyone would. That was the point.

Getting back to the torture story, if an evil sadistic prince wants to kill all the villagers because any number of them may have a basic human conscience, he will likely have many more opportunities to do the same thing later down the road as well, and there probably won't be opportunities to evangelize the prince and any villagers who may need it. So, there is not really a strong rationale for attempting to postpone the likely inevitable misery and death of the entire village, as an excuse for not acting.

Wait -- are you honestly saying "because they will likely die anyway, and we can't evangelize them, there's no real rationale for putting off their deaths"? *That* is your rebuttal trying to preserve your "objective moral law"?

Because if you are, a) your "objective laws" sure seem to come with a lot of qualifiers, and b) the scenario is easily modified.

The Prince, known for keeping his word, has sworn never to visit the village again.

There. Now all the people need to do to survive is keep quiet. Just once. What is the "right" thing to do there, Rick?

And, for that matter, torturing babies for fun should also be acceptable at all times and places.

As I said above, just because *you* can't imagine anything between "holding things sacred" and "no rules at all" doesn't mean other people can't.

Here; let's try two simple moral rules, that don't require the intervention of any "deity", and produce many of the results you want (I can't claim all, and I don't claim "objective" status because this is a first try at a thorny problem after 5 minutes of thought -- however, it is to demonstrate a point.):

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to other people" and"Do not violate another person's bodily integrity first, save in defense of another's bodily integrity."

There. No torturing babies for fun, even by people who could claim honestly "But I wanted to be tortured as a baby!"

Indeed, no infanticide, as that violates both #1 and #2.

If you define "violate" as "act upon another person's body without their consent" -- then where you set the consent barrier determines whether acting out zoophilic or pedophilic activities are objectionable or not.

>Note from the very beginning the conflation of "objective morals" and "Sacred things". As if objective morality could come from nowhere else.

- That seems to be your main problem and the reason why you all have such a difficult time answering my simple questions. :-)

I noticed that no one so far has even attempted to answer the question I asked yesterday:

If nothing must be held sacred and we humans are to be morally equated with animals, as Peter Singer advocates, then please offer reasons why infanticide, incest and pedophilia should be morally objectionable for atheist secular humanists.

You can try to offer some secular atheistic objections, but, in reality, there is no objective reason why these things should be morally objectionable as long as all parties are doing their best to offer consent and are enjoying the process.

>And no need to resort to holding things "sacred".

- You might want to answer the above questions before jumping to conclusions.

. Or, you can simply admit, that if nothing is held sacred, there is no objective reason why these things should be morally

Now, with regard to your evil sadistic Prince:

>the scenario is easily modified...now the baby-torturing price is known for his impeccable honesty and for keeping his word.

- You truly are a science fiction writer aren't you. I have two words for you: George Bush. A person can have a reputation for being a lily white Christian good old boy, but that does not mean the reputation is true. Any one who would advocate a program of torturing innocent people is morally discredited and not worthy of anyone's trust, no matter what lies and spin the mainstream news uses.

> There. Now all the people need to do to survive is keep quiet. Just once. What is the "right" thing to do there, Rick?

- You still don't get it. Because moral justification is based on timeless principles, the basic principles do not change at a moment's notice. I've offered questions related to incest, pedophilia and bestiality, so why don't you address those questions and perhaps this will help you to understand this baby-torture scenario as well.

If nothing must be held sacred and we humans are to be morally equated with animals, as Peter Singer advocates, then please offer reasons why infanticide, incest and pedophilia should be morally objectionable for atheist secular humanists.

You can try to offer some secular atheistic objections, but, in reality, there is no objective reason why these things should be morally objectionable as long as all parties are doing their best to offer consent and are enjoying the process.

I notice you aren't even *responding* to my two very specific suggested principles above -- you're dismissing them out of hand.

Indeed, my two principles are better at explaining moral objections to, say, infanticide -- after all, your Bible explicitly supports it when it is done under orders from God.

After all, your "as long as all parties are doing their best to offer consent and are enjoying the process." fails one of my tests above; that there are people *incapable* of offering consent.

So, which unanswered questions are you claiming, since I've answered your request for reasons for a secular set of principles that explain what you want found "morally objectionable."?

- You still don't get it. Because moral justification is based on timeless principles, the basic principles do not change at a moment's notice. I've offered questions related to incest, pedophilia and bestiality, so why don't you address those questions and perhaps this will help you to understand this baby-torture scenario as well.

I answered those, and you ignored them. Now you're trying to ignore this answer to your previous challenge. Now: "What is the "right" thing to do there, Rick?"

Oh, and while we're at it, I guess we can presume you do not believe in the literalness of the Adam & Eve or Flood stories, since both involve incest of varying degrees, depending on which tradition you follow.

Firstly, In what sense do you believe these standards are remotely binding on any individual?

Secondly, If two people offer a sense of consent and they truly enjoy incest, bestiality or pedophilia, then why should it be considered "hatful" to them according to their secular humanist beliefs which offer that nothing is sacred and pleasure, no matter how bizarre, may be thus considered a valid goal of life? Why do you assume that pleasure "hateful" to others just because you don't like a particular form of it?

Thirdly, in what manner do these forms of sex "violate a persons' bodily integrity?" Who has declared what "bodily integrity" consists of? Please do offer some valid evidence.

Sexual integrity is such an old-fashioned concept for liberated secular humanists, after all, animals commit incest all the time and, according to secular humanism, we are nothing more than advanced animals right?

Incest Not So Taboo in Naturehttp://www.livescience.com/2226-incest-taboo-nature.html

Claiming interspecies sex violates bodily integrity is speciesism. In secular humanism there is no reason to draw such a conclusion. You may as well say that blacks and white cannot get married and have sex because they are different. You are simply revealing yourself to be a secular humanist bigot.

Fourthly, who are you to declare when age appropriate sex should begin for secular humanists. NAMbla (North American Man Boy Love Association) would take issue with your claims. Why should you be considered right and them wrong? You have offered no specific evidence whatsoever, just some vague "principles" with no objective foundation.

Firstly, In what sense do you believe these standards are remotely binding on any individual?

In exactly the same way any moral standard is binding; it provides a guide as to correct action. Note that this was not part of your original "simple" question -- it's something you've brought out now when you were pushed.

Secondly, If two people offer a sense of consent and they truly enjoy incest, bestiality or pedophilia, then why should it be considered "hatful" to them according to their secular humanist beliefs which offer that nothing is sacred and pleasure, no matter how bizarre, may be thus considered a valid goal of life? Why do you assume that pleasure "hateful" to others just because you don't like a particular form of it?

The whole point of the "hateful" is that it establishes a requirement of consent on *everyone's* part involved, not just one person. (Oh, and as a side note: you don't believe pleasure is a valid goal in life? What a miserable, unhappy existence you must lead.)

This is a reciprocal rule; it binds people together in order to figure out what works for *everyone*, rather than imposing a law from above. Of course, I realize that's the only sort of law you consider valid, which is a frightening prospect.

Thirdly, in what manner do these forms of sex "violate a persons' bodily integrity?" Who has declared what "bodily integrity" consists of? Please do offer some valid evidence.

I defined the principles, and I'm using a common phrasing; I don't need to point to some authority. If you can't figure out why certain forms of sexual activity violate a person's bodily integrity, Rick, then you have problems I can't solve.

But, since it's clear you *do* have such problems, I'll explain: this principle asserts that people have a right to control their own bodies, and that doing things like injuring them, or engaging in sexual activities with them against their will, is wrong. Do you disagree?

Sexual integrity is such an old-fashioned concept for liberated secular humanists, after all, animals commit incest all the time and, according to secular humanism, we are nothing more than advanced animals right?

Do you own a straw farm? Because you sure do love building your strawmen.

You may as well say that blacks and white cannot get married and have sex because they are different.

And more straw; on a biological basis, and certainly on a "species" basis, they're practically indistinguishable. The notion of "race" has no real scientific merit, and we've been here before.

Fourthly, who are you to declare when age appropriate sex should begin for secular humanists.

As usual, Rick resorts to an argument from, in this case, lack of authority. I didn't claim my principles were Binding Due To My Authority -- you asked for reasons secular humanists might find a set of activities objectionable, and I offered them. What you appear to have actually wanted was "a set of laws that all secular humanists will agree on that meet my standards of "objectivity" and have no potential whatsoever for ambiguity or abuse", but that's not what you asked for, and considering that you have no set of morals that fits that bill from the other side, it'd be a rather ludicrous thing to ask for.

I note once again you've skipped out on answering:

I answered those, and you ignored them. Now you're trying to ignore this answer to your previous challenge. Now: "What is the "right" thing to do [in the Prince Xlb case], Rick?"

There's a simple question. Answer it.

(I'll leave out, in this thread, all the unanswered questions in the other thread, since apparently only Rick Warden, Hypocrite, gets to chase from thread to thread demanding people answer his questions, even when they already have -- for other people, it's off-topic posting.)

R:One prime example is PZ Myers, who once declared, "Nothing must be held sacred."[1] Nothing would mean, well, nothing. According to Myers, no human rights, no animal rights and no life at all should be held sacred. And there are no sexual boundaries that should be held as sacred either.

I am not a big fan of PZ, but I can bet my lunch thatyou are misinterpreting him. And after reading the original post of Myers, I discovered I was right.

"Nothing must be held sacred. Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet. You are all human beings who must make your way through your life by thinking and learning, and you have the job of advancing humanity’s knowledge by winnowing out the errors of past generations and finding deeper understanding of reality. You will not find wisdom in rituals and sacraments and dogma, which build only self-satisfied ignorance, but you can find truth by looking at your world with fresh eyes and a questioning mind."

If any "sacred" principle falls apart after some questioning, that just means it was useless from the start. Use your brain a little instead of blindly following a teaching.

R:If you are sensing that there is something amiss with a person stating he neither supports nor opposes bestiality, then you are more perceptive with regard to moral reasoning than PZ Myers is.

You failed at numerous occasions to refute the statemant that a middle ground is possible in a moral situation. You have been given several examples with neutral moral stances, but you just dismissed them because they were not "extreme enough" or smth like that.

R:If nothing must be held sacred, then why should bestiality be considered acceptable only under certain conditions and not always?

Straw man. That is not what Myer s statemant is about, as it was shown in the complete quote. It is about the need to question principles and not follow them blindly.

R:And I believe that any group of people who did stand idly by would not want to live with themselves after passively allowing a baby to be tortured to death in front of them.

And you are wrong. We have plenty of examples from psychos to concentration camp guards who never felt any remorse about their crimes.

R:So, there is not really a strong rationale for attempting to postpone the likely inevitable misery and death of the entire village, as an excuse for not acting.

Here you go. You have just proven imnotandrei s point that you would have any number of martyres to stay loyal to your principles. You would not care if alll the babies of the village are killed because of you. That is pricesely the morally invalid "end justifies the means".

R:If nothing must be held sacred, then Peter Singer's infanticide is perfectly acceptable. And, for that matter, torturing babies for fun should also be acceptable at all times and places.

Rick, I have told you before...You are quite the pitiful monster for not being able to think of ANY reason not to torture, rape and murder besides vague directions from a moldy book.

R:If nothing is sacred, then human cannibalism is morally acceptable. After all, as Peter Singer points out, any other attitude would be a form of speciesism.

I have already given you plenty of reasons why human cannibalism is morally unacceptable. Unfortunately, you have memory problems it seems...

And do stop with you authority quotes (I also have zero faith in your accusations, since you often misquote and misintepret). It is completely irrelevant what Singer says. There are no prophets or dogma in secular humanism. Humanism is based on reason, not athorities, unlike religion.

R:The day that PZ Myers proposes that all zoophilia, incest, pedophilia and torture are acceptable is the day he will affirm his declaration that "Nothing must be held sacred."

Tired of throwing straw man after straw man? The only thing PZ meant with that quote is that nothing should remain unquestioned. Again, you are a pitiful monster if you cannot understand why zoophilia, incest and pedophilia are bad.

R:I see both you and Imnotandrei still cannot answer my simple questions. But the hype continues as usual.

Do point a single question from you I refused to answer. On the other hand, I can post a load of my questions you just ignored

R:Some more homework: If nothing must be held sacred and we humans are to be morally equated with animals, as Peter Singer advocates, then please offer reasons why infanticide, incest and pedophilia should be morally objectionable for atheist secular humanists.

Do I need to explain my moral system for the who knows which time? The short answer to those questions is that those practises are harmful in many ways to the individual and to the society as a whole. Again Rick...You are pitiful monster

- The fact that a list of legal categories exists does not in any way touch the subject of moral justification. I guess it is you who needs a little hand holding. Oh, now you're talking about moral JUSTIFICATION? Funny, that wasn't what you STARTED talking about. You made the silly claim that secularists have never demonstrated the existence of reliable moral standards.

I showed you otherwise, and now you're shifting the goalposts.

----

So, if nothing must be held sacred, then do you believe sex between humans and animals is acceptableI agree with Meyers IRT holding nothing sacred. I disagree with your interpretation of that word. It DOES NOT mean "stuff we think is true". It DOES mean "stuff we think is so true that to even question it is blasphemy".

There are no laws/value/truths that are so sacred that they're immune from skepticism.

Period.

Sex between men and animals is reprehensible. I'm sure it still happens, just as I'm sure that catching someone engaged in it would bring embarrassment and maybe a fine for the dude caught in flagrante delicto.

>You made the silly claim that secularists have never demonstrated the existence of reliable moral standards.

- What is truly silly is your opinion that reliable moral standards do not require moral justification. No connection whatsoever?

Hey, you are the perfect candidate for US legal policy. Are you sure sure are not a government troll?

Perhaps it was you who helped to make bestiality legally permissible in the US military. Perhaps you are the reason why the US tortures untried innocent people and has declared the right to imprison US citizens indefinitely without a trial. Nice. I bet you call yourself a patriot to boot.

>Sex between men and animals is reprehensible.

- Yes, I agree, but there is a difference between something being morally reprehensible and being morally wrong.

You (and every other secular commenter here) have not offered any objective reasons why you would oppose it either morally or legally. The same is true for incest and pedophilia. Again, I qualify this with the caveat that there is a sense of mutual consent and all are enjoying the actions.

>You made the silly claim that secularists have never demonstrated the existence of reliable moral standards.

- What is truly silly is your opinion that reliable moral standards do not require moral justification.

Hey, you are the perfect candidate for US legal policy! Are you sure you are not a government troll?

Perhaps it was you who helped to make bestiality legally permissible in the US military. Perhaps you are the reason why the US tortures untried innocent people and has declared the right to imprison US citizens indefinitely without a trial. Nice. I bet you call yourself a patriot to boot.

>Sex between men and animals is reprehensible.

- Yes, I agree, but there is a difference between something being morally reprehensible and being morally wrong based on objective universal reasons.

You (and every other secular commenter here) have not offered any objective reasons why you would oppose it either morally or legally. The same is true for incest and pedophilia. Again, I qualify this with the caveat that there is a sense of mutual consent and all are enjoying the actions.

RickYou (and every other secular commenter here) have not offered any objective reasons why you would oppose it either morally or legally. The same is true for incest and pedophilia. Again, I qualify this with the caveat that there is a sense of mutual consent and all are enjoying the actions.I can not believe you are still pretending that I and others have not bloody dealt with that.

I can only assume then that in your mind, NO secular reason will ever be good enough. The only reason people like you will accept is that biblegod commands it.

And once again, you people fail to realize just what you're actually saying about yourselves when you do that:-by rejecting every non-theist reason for moral actions, you admit that you people don't care for their reasons (empathy - caring about others physical and mental well being, caring about the consequences of one's actions on other people and how it'll affect society as a whole, leaving this world to be a better place for our kids and families to grow up in, etc)

-by accepting only biblegod's commands as reasons you admit that it's only his commands that you accept as morality.

Therefore, without biblegod belief to keep berks like you in line, you yourselves would have no reason to not engage in all that shit that you were talking about earlier.

- What is truly silly is your opinion that reliable moral standards do not require moral justification.Now you're just lying. I never made that claim, nor did I come close to implying it.

- Yes, I agree, but there is a difference between something being morally reprehensible and being morally wrong based on objective universal reasons.Since there's no evidence of objective universal reasons existing, I don't see how you can possible make that claim in good conscience.

Put up or shut up: demonstrate the existence of objective invariant moral standards. Secularists have demonstrated the existence of their standards, here, in this very thread, so it would be pitiful if you were unable to do the same.

Just because you like to continue the same thread in a new location each time does not mean there is no context to our discussion. It is you who is being completely disingenuous.

You offered a list of contemporary laws with the implication that they represent valid standards of law, yet you have not offered any basis for believing these laws are morally justified. In the context of our discussion, you were implying that: "These laws exist and are accepted, therefore they are justified." That is a fairly naive but typical attitude many Americans hold. After WW2 Japanese who committed water boarding were incriminated. Now many naive Christians believe it is justified. The reason is because they follow the opinions of political pundits and do not carefully check what is being proposed. It seems you are not very careful in your approach either.

Instead of making comments that are either, as you claim, irrelevant to our discussion, or mere personal attacks, why don't you answer my simple questions?

- Firstly, that is a non-sequitur, because we are discussing objective principles that are not dependent on the actions of one person, you might as well say, "Your mother wears combat boots, therefore you are wrong."

- Secondly, It is you who is being disingenuous, not me. Instead of answering the simple questions I ask, you bring up points that, according to your own words, are basically irrelevant to our discussion. And then when I call you on it, instead of offering real answers you continue to make stupid claims.

As I noted, if you were serious about debating you would not jump to a new post thread every time you comment. However, even after advised, you continue to do the same, implying you have no desire to engage in a practical and civilized debate. In any event, let's go through the handholding process and find out exactly where you are off.

- The second part of your statement (your true relativism) has been refuted by the example I outlined: "Offer a condition in which torturing babies for fun would be considered morally acceptable." (August 10, 2012 8:03 AM) (true or false?)

4. The example and challenge I offered regarding baby torture has to do with moral justification. (true or false?)

5. Instead of offering an answer to my challenge, i.e., offering a condition in which torturing babies for fun would be would be considered morally acceptable, you simply repeated my phrase and offered a link to a list of legal subjects from Cornell Law School.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

(August 10, 2012 9:12 AM)

6. Your statement that I needed my "hand held" implied that you were actually leading me towards some sort of meaningful answer. (true or false?)

7. However, when I pointed out that your "reliable moral standards" were not morally justified, instead of admitting your answer was a failure, you attempted to claim that justification was not part of our initial discussion and debate:

Oh, now you're talking about moral JUSTIFICATION? Funny, that wasn't what you STARTED talking about. (August 11, 2012 5:06 AM) (true or false?)

8. If you look back to the beginning of our debate, however, we were in fact discussing moral justification. In your very first comment in this thread, you zeroed in on this:

"If your moral relativism is correct and there are no reliable standards, then offer a condition in which torturing babies for fun would be considered morally acceptable." (true or false?)

9. I was making a challenge that directly relates to moral justification, i.e., the justification of torturing babies for fun according to secular humanism. If there are no absolute conditions or universal standards, then there should be at lease one situation in which torturing babies for fun would be morally acceptable. Otherwise this would imply there is a universal standard of sorts. (true or false?)

10. Instead of answering my challenge and refuting my claim, you have helped to invalidate your own claim [there are no reliable universal standards] with your lack of answers. (true or false?)

11. To top it off, you made the following statement:

"You made the silly claim that secularists have never demonstrated the existence of reliable moral standards." (August 11, 2012 5:06 AM) (true or false?)

12. This is a fact so far unchallenged by you. In this light, it is your statement that is silly. (true or false?)

13. If we consider the fact that a) The beginning of our discussion was in fact about moral justification, contrary to what you wrote, and b) you offered no answer to my challenge regarding justification and c) you have failed to admit either of these two points. It is not surprising that you would deny the implications of your statements as well. (true or false?)

14. If denying known documented facts and denying the implications of one's own statements are to be considered, then it is you who is being disingenuous, not me. (true or false?)

15. A further misstatement is noted here: "I never made the claim "reliable moral standards do not require moral justification". You said that, about me." (August 11, 2012 6:48 AM)

16. I never said you made a claim that "reliable moral standards do not require moral justification" - I stated that was your "opinion" and based upon the answers your Cornell University answer to my challenge, that was indeed the implication. (true or false?)

displaying our debate and points where you made false statements and offered false implications, but you have decided not to point out any specific fault or challenge any of the points I made while continuing to claim I am lying. It is you, therefore, who may be clarified as the liar.

in the bible, his own god orders or condones the very actions that Warden keeps challenging US to justify as being evilI think it's possible to extrapolate the flaws in Biblical morality without the Bible even providing a single example.

Like you know, GE, Christian morality is based only upon Authority. Christians need to follow their moral precepts only because God tells them to.

Since that's the ONLY invariant absolute rule, God could ask 'em to bugger little kids, and they'd have to do it.

They've got no justification for saying that God would never ask them to do such a thing. They've got no reason to claim that such an action would be unjust or immoral.

Like you've said, Rick's morality is the very problem he's trying to blame on secularists

R:It seems you have missed the boat entirely. We are not debating what PZ Myers meant by the word sacred at his blog

Your attack on secular humanism is mostly a straw man. Myers and others never claimed that life is not sacred (i.e. not valuable) to my knowledge. However, you went quote mining and made ridiculous assumptions.

R:Explain why incest, bestiality and pedophilia should be considered morally wrong in accordance with atheistic secular humanism wherein there is a sense of mutual consent and all parties seem to be enjoying the activity.

I know it is hard, Rick. But do learn to read. Since I feel generous, I will even give you detailed instructions...

>Myers and others never claimed that life is not sacred (i.e. not valuable) to my knowledge.

Myers explicitly stated that nothing must be held sacred implying that human secular reasoning alone (i.e. with no religious or spiritual context) should account for all decisions.

With regard to sex, he and other secular humanists fumble because they cannot discern any valid and objective reasons why the sexual behaviors I described should be considered immoral (And apparently you cannot either).

When it comes to the question of sacred life, your problem is summed up in your statement

"Myers and others never claimed that life is not sacred (i.e. not valuable)"

According to secular humanism, the value of life is relevant mainly with regard to pragmatism. Peter Singer may advocate infanticide because babies are not considered sentient beings worthy of protection.

So, AnonyRous, why should a human baby have more value than an adult cow that is slaughtered for hamburgers according to the tenets of secular humanism? Cows are not considered to be overpopulating the world, but humans are. Therefore, from a pragmatic view, infanticide should probably be acceptable according to secular humanism. Give one reason why it should not be morally acceptable in accordance with your beliefs.

WardenAccording to secular humanism, the value of life is relevant mainly with regard to pragmatism. Peter Singer may advocate infanticide because babies are not considered sentient beings worthy of protection.Why do you pretend to care about the lives of infants? Your own god has many times in the past ordered babies and pregnant women to be killed.

Why do you pretend to be pro-life when someone other than biblegod wants babies killed?

If morality was truly "objective" then it'd be wrong to kill babies regardless of who ordered it.

R:Myers explicitly stated that nothing must be held sacred implying that human secular reasoning alone (i.e. with no religious or spiritual context) should account for all decisions.

Yes, and you are a pitiful monster if you cannot understand the value of human life without a moldy book.

R:With regard to sex, he and other secular humanists fumble because they cannot discern any valid and objective reasons why the sexual behaviors I described should be considered immoral (And apparently you cannot either).

Hm...What part of my explanation about why those actions are immoral are you unable to comprehand? "These actions are harmful for both the individuals and society".

Please, do show what you do not understand in the comment above. Is that the grammar? Or maybe the vocabulary?

R:According to secular humanism, the value of life is relevant mainly with regard to pragmatism. Peter Singer may advocate infanticide because babies are not considered sentient beings worthy of protection.

1. I have zero faith in your statemants since you have blatently misinterpreted people several times (and you have just been caught now with Myer s statemant).

2. Secular humanists rely on reason and not on authorities. Hence the statemant from Singer, Myers or any one is useless without the arguments to back them up. Do present the exact quotes with argumentation.

3. Babies are considered human beings, for your information. Their brain and sesnses are developed enough at that point to have rights.

R:So, AnonyRous, why should a human baby have more value than an adult cow that is slaughtered for hamburgers according to the tenets of secular humanism?

Two reasons from the top of my head:

1. The potential of a cow and baby is different

2. Overpopulation is not at that catastrophic level that people would need to slaughter each other.

>What part of my explanation about why those actions are immoral are you unable to comprehand? "These actions are harmful for both the individuals and society".

- The part that is valid - that I don't see anywhere. If humans are supposedly overpopulating the earth, then it shouldn't be a problem according to secular humanism if a number of people chose to have sex with animals instead of humans. It would seem that it would be pragmatically helpful, not harmful.

You see, Anonymous, Rick doesn't understand, and apparently never will, that secular humanism isn't a monolith. As I said a long while back, and Rick keeps proving -- while to him Christianity can be divided into True Christians and not-true Christians, according to some metric that no one can determine (even Rick admitted that some of his "determinants" were things no person could tell), Secular Humanism is a bloc, whatever Rick says it believes is what we're all supposed to believe, and Peter Singer is apparently its prophet.

And the only way to convince him otherwise is to provide the quotes from the Secular Humanist Bible that we're all supposed to follow.

If not one secular humanist can offer an answer to the above challenge, it's interesting that none of the secular humanists at my blog is willing to admit it and say, "yes, there is no objective reason why these things should be considered morally wrong for secular humanists."

I though it was supposedly Christians and all theists who were living based on outdated taboos. Surprise, surprise, it's the modern secular humanist trapped in the residue of theistic Western Civilization who can't quite understand why certain things have been illegal in society. It's time for you fellas to become set free so you can become liberated secular humanists.

Don't let your own pet peeves hold you back. The pagans did all these things in ancient times and you can do them now. What's holding you back, your conscience?

I offered you a set of principles that made at least two of those things morally objectionable, and pointed out that your own religious text repeatedly *didn't* object to the third, depending upon your interpretation of it. And got crickets for a reply.

You want to claim "objective" truth for your particular religious text and interpretations thereof -- which, given that it's been vastly differently interpreted over the years seems a very thin reed to hang a claim of "objectivity" on. For example, you and Martin Luther clearly have different "objective" moral codes based upon the same text.

You ask for something you can't provide that is binding upon a diverse group of people who don't have the same opinions on many things, and call that a "simple challenge", Rick -- and then, if the answer doesn't meet your hidden requirements, you reject it. Calling it "simple", and demanding that anyone who wants to discuss with you meet it is, at best, a sign of muddled thinking -- at worst, it's just more of your dishonest rhetoric.

Don't let your own pet peeves hold you back. The pagans did all these things in ancient times and you can do them now. What's holding you back, your conscience?

My principles. Which may not be "objective" in the way you want them to be, but work quite well for me, thank you very much. What's more, they provide a much more useful and universal standard than "I think this old book tells me to do X, Y, and Z, despite this other evidence over here which suggests that X and Z are OK when we're told by an outside force, but we have to judge when that force is telling us, and despite the fact it told those other guys to do A and B as well, which I don't like, and so will say isn't in the book."

Surprise, surprise, it's the modern secular humanist trapped in the residue of theistic Western Civilization who can't quite understand why certain things have been illegal in society.

We can understand them, Rick -- that *you* can't understand how we do so isn't our problem, it's yours.

Where does Myers ever affirm anywhere that life has a sacred value or that sexuality has a sacred aspect? Where are your links? Ambiguity counts for nothing, but this is the preferred bastion of such atheist apologists. :-)

>2. Secular humanists rely on reason and not on authorities. Hence the statemant from Singer, Myers or any one is useless without the arguments to back them up.

- So offer the best examples you have to offer from any sources wherein it may be demonstrated that incest, bestiality and pedophilia should be considered morally wrong in accordance with atheistic secular humanism wherein there is a sense of mutual consent and all parties seem to be enjoying the activity.

If you cannot offer such resources (and no one else can either), then why won't you (or any other secular humanist who comments here) admit there is no objective reason why these actions should be considered immoral according to secular humanism?

R:If humans are supposedly overpopulating the earth, then it shouldn't be a problem according to secular humanism if a number of people chose to have sex with animals instead of humans. It would seem that it would be pragmatically helpful, not harmful.

You know, population control and bestiality have nothing to do with each other.

1. Only a minority is interested in these things. Their impact on the world s population is too small to take into account

2. Bestiality does not exclude the possibility of sex between humans.

3. It is still harmful for the health of the individual and society.

R:Where does Myers ever affirm anywhere that life has a sacred value or that sexuality has a sacred aspect? Where are your links?

I am not the one with the burden of proof, Rick. You are the one with the accusations. I am not a big fan of Myers, but you have clearly misquoted him with the principle that nothing should be held sacred. Since most of your accusations were based on that phrase (which had nothing to do with value), you need to find something to plug the whole in your reasoning or give an apology for misrepresenting his views.

R:So offer the best examples you have to offer from any sources wherein it may be demonstrated that incest, bestiality and pedophilia should be considered morally wrong...

Ehhhh...Rick, I am sorry to tell you, but you are brain damaged. I answered that question at least three times... I gave you precise directions on how to open the link with my answer... Though, even if it does seem futile I will answer your question for the gazillion time and in capital letters so it is harder for you to ignore:

>I am not the one with the burden of proof, Rick. You are the one with the accusations.

- I have just outlined a logical deduction of why it is no.

Simply saying, "Those actions are harmful to individuals and society" without considering such things as the greater good and contraception is not a defense at all.

If you think we need to reduce human populations, then why don't you secular humanists help promote bestiality so there will be less human procreation? Condoms may of course be used if there is any concern about physical harm or infections. Use a little common sense. Unless, of course, you are convinced that bestiality is morally wrong based on some reason you cannot explain. You know, I am beginning to become confident in believing that is the only explanation for your behavior. :-)

>You know, population control and bestiality have nothing to do with each other.

1. Many believe that the human population is the greatest threat to the Earth.2. Human reproduction occurs naturally through a man and a woman.3. If zoophilia is not in conflict with secular humanist morals, then it is a valid alternative for these atheists.4. If more secular atheists would practice zoophilia, then human populations would reduce.5. Therefore, practicing zoophilia is a valid and pragmatic opportunity for secular humanists to help reduce the Earth's population.

Which point or points do you disagree with?

Your statement, "It is still harmful for the health of the individual and society." is a generalization that is based on your personal value judgments. If saving the Earth is a top priority, then logic dictates bestiality is helpful in accordance with secular humanism.

R:Many believe that the human population is the greatest threat to the Earth.

Define "many". I think that would be about 0,0001 of the population.

R:If zoophilia is not in conflict with secular humanist morals, then it is a valid alternative for these atheists.

Unforunately, it is in conflict. Hence, a meaningless assertion.

R:If more secular atheists would practice zoophilia, then human populations would reduce. Therefore, practicing zoophilia is a valid and pragmatic opportunity for secular humanists to help reduce the Earth's population.

Sigh...read the two first points from my previous post:

1. Only a minority is interested in these things. Their impact on the world s population is too small to take into account

2. Bestiality does not exclude the possibility of sex between humans (i.e. sex with animals does not exclude sex with humans and reproduction)

R:Your statement, "It is still harmful for the health of the individual and society." is a generalization that is based on your personal value judgments

Do learn to ask questions, Rick. I think that is a basic in kindergarten. The correct way to ask that question would have been: "In what way bestiality is harmful for the individuals and society?"

THE ANSWER (capital letters for the impaired)

1. It is harmful for one s health (chances of venerical diseases are higher and you provided yourself a link to higher chances of cancer)

2. Animals are unable to communicate consent and are unaware of the consequences. Chances are high that the person is just cruelly taking advantage of the animal and harming them.

3. It is extremly harmful for the psychology of the human being involved and their social functions. Sex without consent is always harmful.

4. It impairs the relationship of that human with others. The relationship with an animal will never be as fullfiling as with another human being.

^ "7 billion people is a 'serious challenge'". UPI, 31 October 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2011.

Read article for yourself, including a summary point, "The recent rapid increase in human population over the past three centuries has raised concerns that the planet may not be able to sustain present or larger numbers of inhabitants."

- Animal consent may be implied without words. Skatje Myers seems to think so: "Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets..."

3. It is extremly harmful for the psychology of the human being.

- Show some data.

4. It impairs the relationship of that human with others.

- If some people would rather have a closer relationship with their pets than with humans, how is that "harmful?"

Yes, and your logical deduction was based on a straw man. Hence, it is invalid and you need to find smth to back it up.

R:If you think we need to reduce human populations, then why don't you secular humanists help promote bestiality so there will be less human procreation?

I have news for you, Rick. Sexual preferences is not something that you can promote (with the exception of sadomasochistic behavior). You either are or are not.

R:Where on earth did you come up with that number?

1. The secular humanists are the minority in our society. (the majority are theists and not every atheist is a secular humanist)

2. Not every secular humanist consider overpopulation a threat.

3. Present food production is enough to feed the world. It is the distribution of resources that is the main problem for the moment. However, our industry will not be able to keep up with the current growth of the population (especially if the culture of a consuming society, which wastes precious resources, persists)

R:Use contraceptives.

Again, Rick. I have to apologize. I forgot that you are a clueless idiot who has no idea how veneral diseases operate. There is no such thing as a contraceptive that can guarantee complete protection from sexually transmitted diseases.

R:Show some data.

Sex without consent is always harmful for human beings. The rapist is unable to use their empathy towards their victim. Ignoring the suffering of others will only lead to further inability to use empathy, an important aspect of an individual and society. That is pure logic.

R:If some people would rather have a closer relationship with their pets than with humans, how is that "harmful?"

Red herring. In this case it is irrelevant what the people wish for. It is about what is better for them. One can prefer smoking to not smoking, but it does not make smoking better for them.

>However, our industry will not be able to keep up with the current growth of the population (especially if the culture of a consuming society, which wastes precious resources, persists)

- It seems as though you are personally acknowledging your belief that that human population growth is a serious problem. Why do you believe other secular humanists would not likely draw the same conclusion?

>There is no such thing as a contraceptive that can guarantee complete protection from sexually transmitted diseases.

I never said there was. There is a risk involved in many forms of pleasure. Smoking causes cancer. Liquor causes organ damage and alcoholism. And yet many, many people continue to engage in these actions.

This brings up another point. Why do you believe that taking risks to one's health is immoral?

Do you consider smoking immoral as a secular humanist? How about drinking alcohol?

>Sex without consent is always harmful for human beings.

So, you cannot show any psychological data as I requested regarding zoophilia. You again bring up a straw man point. Animals can in fact show signs of consent, as Skatje Myers pointed out.

>Red herring. In this case it is irrelevant what the people wish for. It is about what is better for them.

- Actually, when it comes to the question of morality and the law, a person's intentions and wishes are critical. The point I made is not a red herring at all:

If some people would rather have a closer relationship with their pets than with humans, how is that "harmful?"

Skatje Myers brought this point up and she is an atheist. She apparently doesn't believe there is any moral problem with this issue of having an intimate pet soul mate so why should you?

Making blanket statements about your personal opinions with no data to back it up is not a real answer.

R:Why do you believe other secular humanists would not likely draw the same conclusion?

Beacause people make different conclusions based on the same facts. Not every Christian belives the same thing. Not every Humanist believe the same thing.

R:I never said there was

Yes you did. A condom is not enough of a protection in this case.

R:Do you consider smoking immoral as a secular humanist? How about drinking alcohol?

I consider excessive drinking and smoking as immoral

R:So, you cannot show any psychological data as I requested regarding zoophilia.

I am too lazy to look for a study on bestiality. However, we know that sex without consent is a dehumanizing act and we have enough data (Vietnam syndrome) to conclude that any dehumanizing act is bad for the individual and society.

R:Animals can in fact show signs of consent, as Skatje Myers pointed out.

Sigh...Let us try in capital letters then maybe you will understand...

THERE IS NO OBJECTIVE CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH CONSENT OF AN ANIMAL! Clear?

R:Actually, when it comes to the question of morality and the law, a person's intentions and wishes are critical.

And why should I agree with you? That is your claim, not mine.

R:She apparently doesn't believe there is any moral problem with this issue of having an intimate pet soul mate so why should you?

And why should agree with her? Secular humanism is about reason, not authority (how many times do I have to say the same thing?). If she is unable to think of a reason why bestiality is wrong, too bad for her.

I gave you my reasons and one of them is enough to conclude that an action is undesirable. And you have yet to refute me:

1. It is bad for one s physical health (you provided the data yourself)

2. It is bad for one s psychological health (any dehumanizing act is bad)

3. It is bad for society (it hinders the socializing ability of an individual)

4. It is bad for one s developemant (a relationship with an animal is never as fulfilling as a relationship with a human)

R:Making blanket statements about your personal opinions with no data to back it up is not a real answer.

So you disagree with my reasons above? Read a book on psychology for data. I also used your beloved logic.

Yes, funny -- he appears, as usual, to have decided to try and declare victory and move on, despite having once again failed to deal with cogent points, in at least one case making up a refutation that he appears to have made only in his own head.

Yes it can be implies without words. However, we have no way of knowing that for sure if it was trully a consentual act. And we know for sure that the animal has no idea of the consequences of such action. Therfore, bestiality is illegal.

Nope. Not even close. I implied nothing of the sort, and nothing that could sensibly be construed as the following:

"reliable moral standards do not require moral justification"

Even more telling is the fact that until now, you haven't attempted to understand my position better, nor have you reworded the lie in question. I suppose it'd be unrealistic for you to apologize, but you don't even seem to be heading in that general direction.

You told a lie about me; it even seems as if it was done with intent. You give us no reason to imagine that you ACTUALLY DO believe objective universal standards of morality exist

Refusing to address the specific details of our debate while claiming I am lying is hypocritical, plain and simple. This is not the first time this has occurred at my blog. This is my last offer. Are you going to address the specific points of our debate or shall I simply write you off as a time-waster?

Are you going to address the specific points of our debate or shall I simply write you off as a time-waster?

Coming from you, the champion of "I won't address that point, I'll go off and post another comment/start another thread that pretends the other point(s) didn't even exist", that is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The only time you're interested in "the specific details of our debate" is when you think you've trapped someone -- if it's you who doesn't have a retort, the details aren't important, or the subject gets changed, or the debate gets dropped altogether.

Let's try that second one again: http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/08/atheist-achilles-heels-objective.html?showComment=1344702296226#c4896787469853160654

Right down at the end; you still haven't answered that question, on a point that you made a centerpiece of *this* post.

I had asked for one "relevant and cogent point" but rehashing previously refuted points is not such an example.

You didn't get around to even trying (and failing) to "refute" that other point until you were called on it here, Rick. You had said *nothing* about it, despite being pointed at it several times.

That is why you whining about other people "not addressing the specific details of our debate" is the pot calling the kettle black; you do it all the time, and your only claim is "Oh, I already refuted that." Perhaps in your own head, but often not with even an attempt (albeit, in this case, a failed one) in text.

Your "answer" in the next comment isn't one; it's trying to dodge the challenge. Remember -- every time you use a hypothetical, you don't accept "but that can't happen" as an answer -- you want an answer to *your* hypothetical.

You have a perception that I have not answered some of your important questions but it would be helpful if your questions were clear and summarized in the first place.

They usually are; at which point you dodge and duck and weave, and if you really want me to repost my questions every single time, I can go that route.

I notice, for example, you're still dodging back on the Olympic medals thread, despite your discussion of Philippian (sic) athletes.

- Actually, I was the one who posted an itemized sequential list of the points in our debate while showing the implications along the way. I asked you to show which specific areas you contested and you have been disingenuous and dishonest.

"R:Some more homework: If nothing must be held sacred and we humans are to be morally equated with animals, as Peter Singer advocates, then please offer reasons why infanticide, incest and pedophilia should be morally objectionable for atheist secular humanists.

Do I need to explain my moral system for the who knows which time? The short answer to those questions is that those practises are harmful in many ways to the individual and to the society as a whole. Again Rick...You are pitiful monster"

You may not be able to understand my answer, but you have no right to claim that you have not received one.

Suprise...suprise...suprise...another change of subject...I guess you will just repeat the same nonsense about the lack of morality of atheists, Christian "persecution", Singer s faulty conclusion about gay parenting, vague and useless definition of "true christian" at a later thread. And I am sure you are also going to claim that no one has answered your "challenge" on morality and refuse to apologize for any faulty conclusions or mistakes of your own... Well, it would have been weird to expect anything else from a dishonest and brainwashed person

>And I am sure you are also going to claim that no one has answered your "challenge" on morality

- I will give you and Imnotandrei credit for trying to address points, which is more than Whateverman seems capable of, however, making blanket statements about your personal opinions with no data to back them cannot be considered sufficient.

however, making blanket statements about your personal opinions with no data to back them cannot be considered sufficient.

What "data" do you want, Rick? You challenged people for an explanation of why a secular humanist would consider certain actions immoral. You were given several. (Which should clue you in on part of your problem, right there.)

All you have by way of "data" is "This old book told me it was wrong" -- to borrow a phrase, "No basis for a system of government" ;)

All of your other data appears to consist of anecdotes and appeals to "Well, this feels right to people, so it's probably something that's mostly kind of objective."

Again, hardly persuasive.

Why is it, Rick, that when you raise a philosophical point (like your challenge here) you want to take it to scientific levels of proof, but when you raise a social-science point, you don't? Then it becomes all about anecdotes and vague possibilities?